Loading...
04 MAY 10 A G E N D A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT MAY 10, 2004 - 6:30 P.M. CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM 1. CALL TO ORDER: 2. APPROVAL AND/OR CORRECTION OF MINUTES: Regular Scheduled Meeting April 12, 2004 1-10 3. VARIANCE REQUEST(S): Building line setback variance 5320 Ridge Road Privacy Fence Petitioner: Mr. Michael J. Stroup 11-12 ADJOURNMENT MINUTES: BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING DATE AND TIME: May 10, 2004 6:30 p.m. – 6:49 p.m. ATTENDANCE: Commissioners: Commissioners Martha Boyd, and William Montgomery, Chairman Stroud and City Engineer Whisker _________________________________________________________________ City Clerk Susan Davitt recorded those listed above in attendance and Chairman Stroud declared a quorum. APPROVAL AND/OR CORRECTION OF MINUTES: Commissioner Boyd moved, seconded by Commissioner Montgomery to approve the minutes of the Regularly Scheduled Board of Adjustment meeting of April 12, 2004, with Chairman Stroud voting AYE. MOTION CARRIED. VARIANCE(S): Building line setback variance for a privacy fence at 5320 Ridge Road Chairman Stroud opened the public hearing at approximately 6:31 p.m. Mr. Michael Stroup of 5320 Ridge Road stated that the residence is on a corner lot. He related that he had an in ground pool built and that because of State law and insurance requirements he fenced the pool regarding safety factors. He related that he is requesting a variance for his privacy fence because of the lay of the land on the north side of the property along Oak Ridge Road. He stated that the privacy fence is 10’ inside the building setback, adding that it would still allow for 32’ from the curb to the fenced area. He presented photographs, explaining that because the property slopes toward the street it is more aesthetically pleasing to have the fence at the top of the ridgeline. He presented a picture of the property prior to the fence being erected and a picture of the fence after being erected. He related the need to go ahead with construction of the fence regarding fencing swimming pool requirements, adding that he had the fence construction at the variance setback request. The Board viewed the photographs of the fence as constructed. Chairman Stroud noted that the property appeared to be flat from the ridge to the 35’ building line. Mr. Stroup stated that the build line was so close to the house that he was losing a lot of yard, adding that it is nicer looking both inside and out the fenced area having it move toward the ridge and somewhat in line with the ridge. He then added that he offset the fence by two feet because he did not want erosion under the fence line to occur before he could get the grass to grow. City Engineer Whisker stated that it was the petitioner’s decision to construct the fence prior to the variance hearing, adding that Mr. Stroup understands that the fence would have to be moved if the variance is not granted. Chairman Stroud noted that there was no one present to speak against the request. In response to a question posed by Chairman Stroud, City Engineer Whisker stated that it is permissible to construct a fence over a rear easement 1 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING May 10, 2004 continued: up to the property line. Mr. Stroup then answered Chairman Stroud, saying that he had spoken with his neighbor, Mr. Bob Harden, who did not voice any concerns regarding placement of the fence. Chairman Stroud stated that he also had spoken with Mr. Harden who had questioned him as to the nature of the variance. Mr. Stroup assured Chairman Stroud that he had several conversations with Mr. Harden and informed him of his intentions regarding placement of the fence. Chairman Stroud noted that while the lots are very large, the corner lots have a 35’ front and side yard setback. He continued that he feels it was the developers’ intention to address aesthetics by designing the setback to be 35’ for both the front and side yards of corner lots. Mr. Stroup then answered Chairman Stroud that the fence was completed approximately three weeks ago. Discussion ensued regarding location of the pool in relationship to the house and side yard. Mr. Stroup related that the pool is approximately 20’ X 40’, adding that it might be approximately 40’ from the house and slightly off-centered to the south of the property. Chairman Stroud clarified that the moving the fence back to the legal setback would not affect the current placement of the swimming pool. Mr. Stroup agreed that it was more for aesthetics to have the fence line closer to the top of the ridgeline, along with his attempt to utilize more of his property. He then answered that the privacy fence is 6’ in height. In response to a question from Chairman Stroud, Mr. Stroup stated that he was not aware of the building line setback regulations until Ingle Fence measured for the fence from the plot plan. He stated that he then begun the process to obtain a variance from the City but because of the pool construction he went ahead and had the fence built. Discussion ensued regarding Mr. Stroup’s prior knowledge regarding his decision to construct the fence without a variance. Mr. Stroup explained that he felt that he would “take his chances”, adding that he does not feel that the request is unreasonable. Chairman Stroud voiced his concern for granting a variance against the developers’ design plan regarding 35’ setbacks on corner lots, which he felt the design theory was to maintain the side fence line from becoming intrusive to the neighbor located directly behind the property. Mr. Stoup acknowledged that the current placement of the fence may block the front yard view of his neighbor, Mr. Harden. 2 BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING May 10, 2004 continued: Chairman Stroud stated that he feels the developer designed the corner lots with 35’ setback in order to maintain the uniformity of the Subdivision. Mr. Stroup stated that he is not sure he would have purchased the lot if he had been aware of the setback requirements. He stated that alteration of the fence would be costly and he was hoping that the Board would agree. Discussion ensued regarding the large lots within the Subdivision. Chairman Stroud closed the public hearing at approximately 6:46 p.m. Commissioner Montgomery moved, seconded by Commissioner Boyd to deny variance approval of the side yard setback variance request at 5320 Ridge Road, with Chairman Stroud voting AYE. MOTION DENIED. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING May 10, 2004 continued: In response to a question posed by Mr. Stroup, Chairman Stroud answered that an appeal from the Board of Adjustment would have to be taken through a court of law outside the City’s jurisdiction. ADJOURNMENT: Commissioner Boyd moved, seconded by Commissioner Montgomery to adjourn the meeting at approximately 6:49 p.m. MOTION CARRIED. Respectfully, ___________________________ _____________________________ Susan L. Davitt CHAIRMAN Mark Stroud CITY CLERK - TREASURER 3